Comments on: The Steig Corrigendumhttps://climateaudit.org/2009/08/05/the-steig-corrigendum/
by Steve McIntyreThu, 08 Dec 2016 12:56:06 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.com/By: Mann on Irreproducible Results in Thompson (PNAS 2006) « Climate Audithttps://climateaudit.org/2009/08/05/the-steig-corrigendum/#comment-327917
Sun, 04 Mar 2012 17:11:45 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6712#comment-327917[…] in Nature making essentially the same point I had made several months before in my CA post. See The Steig Corrigendum for discussion. A graph there by Roman Mureika shows that the portion of the continent that shows […]
]]>By: Steig Professes Ignorance « Climate Audithttps://climateaudit.org/2009/08/05/the-steig-corrigendum/#comment-243018
Tue, 12 Oct 2010 00:16:42 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6712#comment-243018[…] his or her own.” My letter to Nature, together with my e-mail to Steig and co-authors, is in Comment 60 of the CA thread on the Steig […]
]]>By: Steig and the International Man of Mystery « Climate Audithttps://climateaudit.org/2009/08/05/the-steig-corrigendum/#comment-243015
Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:58:01 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6712#comment-243015[…] Real Climate has defended Steig against a plagiarism complaint from Hu McCulloch, covered by Pielke Jr here and Jeff Id here. Hu’s original post is here and the most recent CA discussion here. Hu’s complaint is here. […]
]]>By: curioushttps://climateaudit.org/2009/08/05/the-steig-corrigendum/#comment-189755
Sat, 08 Aug 2009 23:25:10 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6712#comment-189755Looking at Steig et al again, is Fig2 of the main paper also in need of revision? I’m not sure what this is representing with its “grey” 95% CLs – they seem to be simply constant error bands to the annual anomaly?:

One would surmise that having done similar maps in Figure S4, they would have have repeated it with the updated AR-corrected results. Their picture would not have been particularly supportive of the statement: “The corrected confidence levels do not change the assessed significance of trends, nor any of the primary conclusions of the paper“.

I strongly believe that they overstated their case in the initial publication. As Steve rightly points out in #123, there are definitely a lot more issues involved here.

Strongly recommend you prepare a joint letter to Nature with these graphs, especially to counter Nature’s placing Steig on its cover.

]]>By: Craig Loehlehttps://climateaudit.org/2009/08/05/the-steig-corrigendum/#comment-189749
Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:11:07 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6712#comment-189749Re: RomanM (#117), With that map, it escapes me how they can say that none of their conclusions is altered.
]]>